|
On October 03 2013 11:00 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 10:43 Serejai wrote:
At the end of the first LoTR movie I knew the names of all the main characters. I had a favorite, I had a least favorite. I knew the villains
At the end of the first Hobbit movie I knew... Gandalf and Bilbo - two people that I already knew from the LoTR movies. I don't give a shit about any of the dwarves, nor could I tell you any of their names or ranks other than that one was a king.
This just hasn't grabbed me the way LoTR did and I'm not sure I'll bother seeing the next two movies. You do realize this is an issue that goes back to the source material? Thorin and to some extent Balin are the two standout and Fili & Kili just because they are younger. But what does Gloin really do in the book beyond quarrel with Oin in the first rainfalls before the Trolls. It is difficult to to portray 15 people separately when in the book they were light-heartedly named background characters (Ori, Dori, Nori, Bifor, Bofur, Bombur.) The rhyming scheme of the names helps collect them in our minds when reading, but you don't see that in the movie. I am hoping that the next two movies will further develop what Jackson has started in differentiating the Dwarves... particularly once Gandalf leaves.
I've never read any of the books, so no. It seems like LoTR was fully coherent to people that never read the books, whereas The Hobbit seems to have a lot more appeal to book readers.
It's kinda like... I watched Game of Thrones before reading the books, and despite there being so many characters (and so many changing constantly), I could follow it without trouble at all. Even after re-watching the Hobbit multiple times I still can't figure out who is who.
You say it's the source material, but obviously Hollywood is going to want this to appeal beyond book readers, which it currently doesn't. How do you think the next two movies might improve on this? What would you say to someone who was on the fence in order to convince them to stick with it?
|
Canada11382 Posts
Well I am saying it is an inherent problem. But I think Jackson has been really trying to differentiate the dwarves from each other. Maybe he hasn't succeeded, but I can definitely tell the effort that has gone in.
Thorin- king returning. Ancient enemies, old grudges and a grandfather that fell under the spell of wealth. All forshadowing the character arc for the next two.
Balin- the old, wise dwarf counsellor advicing caution and the conscious of the group (parallels role in book.)
Dwalin- tough, enforcer. Will follow Thorin
Ori- Young and brash. Way out of his element and the others know it (I wonder if they'll bring up his scholarly pursuits a bit more.)
Nori- suck up to Gandalf. "How many dragons have you killed, Gandalf" plus offering tea, etc.
Dori- not much on him
Oin- deaf & reader of portents. not much
Gloin- not much, except obviously father of Gimli simply by looks.
Fili & Kili- about as interchangeable as the books. But clearly built up as the Orlando Bloom alternatives. Young and inexperienced.
Bifur- not much on him. Axe in the head and I don't think he speaks Common Tongue anymore
Bofur- aside from Balin, one of the most symathetic dwarves towards Bilbo despite his early mocking
Bombur- he's fat and that's about it. And that's about all he is in the book too, except that complains just about as much as Bilbo.
So granted you aren't seeing character arc in all of them. You can't physically with that many. But in my opinion, they have at least begun to establish who the dwarves are and what the characters will be like in the future movies.
In fact, it would probably not have been so noticable if Jackson had abandoned the idea of treating the dwarves individually and instead introduced three named dwarves and kept the rest as a nameless unit of background characters that hardly get any screen time. In that way you have a typical Hollywood 5 man band (when you include Gandalf and Bilbo.) Everyone else keep out frame or focus and people would probably not even care they don't know about the others as they would just be random crew members or the nameless grunts.
If you found Bilbo and Gandalf the most interesting to follow, then that is what makes The Hobbit successful. Tolkien introduces us to a fantastic world through the eyes of a very ordinary Hobbit and slowly brings in to a more and more wonderous world. (Which incidently, parallels how Tolkien felt stories on the fantastic ought to develop- from the mundane to the fantastic. Bilbo's journey is the same that Tolkien hopes to take with the Reader.) You should not expect a Game of Thrones level of intrigue, but come to the story on its own terms and see what this author is trying to do that is different from the others.
Having said that, I will say the political intrigue in the events surrounding the Lonely Mountain is suprisingly nuanced for a children's story- who is the bad guy, who is the good guy, etc. Much less straight forward then people give the story credit. Hopefully Jackson will catch that nuance in the third film.
|
Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can.
|
On October 03 2013 20:04 Vorenius wrote:
Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can.
Why do people say this about movies. The people creating the movie aren't doing half-assed jobs. It's pretty clear from everything he does that Peter Jackson really has a passion for these films. About the only people I could agree are "milking for money" are Newline Cinema and MGM and that's their job.
I'm coming in late to the dwarf discussion but I don't know if there actually is a way to clearly distinguish so many people, let alone dwarves with similar sounding names, in a 3 hour film. I think that's kind of the point; you're not supposed to be able to remember each and every one of them, but maybe you'll have a favourite or two.
|
On October 03 2013 20:20 Oldfool wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 20:04 Vorenius wrote:
Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can. Why do people say this about movies. The people creating the movie aren't doing half-assed jobs. It's pretty clear from everything he does that Peter Jackson really has a passion for these films. About the only people I could agree are "milking for money" are Newline Cinema and MGM and that's their job.
When making LotR there was absolutely a great passion behind the movies, all the way from Jackson and down to every single person involved. With the hobbit it seems to be just going through the motions, doing the same things with a different story. It's only natural I suppose. It's one thing working 100+ hours per week for almost 5 years to make a trilogy, but to do it twice? I doubt that's possible. On the other hand when New Line comes to you with a blank check and asks you to make some movies for them you are gonna say yes regardless. I don't blame them that they are trying to make a bunch of money off of this, they just won't get anymore of mine.
Also, don't tell me that adding in Legolas and having a his girlfriend was necessary progress to the story. It's an obvious marketing tool to target a specific audience.
I suppose comparing them to LotR isn't fair as that might have been a once in a lifetime achievement, but it's still the obvious thing to compare them to.
The story of the Hobbit (movie) is poorly structured and lacks focus. It's split between the small adventure of the hobbit and the grand epic of the White Council vs Sauron. Having two separate storylines could have worked if the mood and feel were at least similar. But they aren't. The dwarfs are fooling around and tumbling down hills, and then cut to Gandalf/Saruman/Elrond sitting in a dark room talking for 15 minutes.
The special effects of the Hobbit are pretty bad compared to LotR, despite there being ten years between them. It's so obvious what are effects shots and what isn't that is completely destroys any immersion. The first time I watched the LotR movies I didn't recognize a single obvious effect.
|
On October 03 2013 11:06 shaftofpleasure wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 22:57 JimSocks wrote:
well, i hope they film it in regular 24p this time. i do admit, the 48 framerate looked good during the CGI sequences (action scenes), but it took me out of the movie everytime it shifts back to normal scenes. WTF are you talking about? They've filmed it all in 48p and finished filming before the first installation was released.
sorry i don't religiously follow productions of movies bro
|
The biggest problem I had with the first movie was unnecessarily draw out scenes to the point were it was getting silly. Otherwise it was good for what it is.
|
On October 03 2013 21:28 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 20:20 Oldfool wrote:On October 03 2013 20:04 Vorenius wrote:
Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can. Why do people say this about movies. The people creating the movie aren't doing half-assed jobs. It's pretty clear from everything he does that Peter Jackson really has a passion for these films. About the only people I could agree are "milking for money" are Newline Cinema and MGM and that's their job. When making LotR there was absolutely a great passion behind the movies, all the way from Jackson and down to every single person involved. With the hobbit it seems to be just going through the motions, doing the same things with a different story. It's only natural I suppose. It's one thing working 100+ hours per week for almost 5 years to make a trilogy, but to do it twice? I doubt that's possible. On the other hand when New Line comes to you with a blank check and asks you to make some movies for them you are gonna say yes regardless. I don't blame them that they are trying to make a bunch of money off of this, they just won't get anymore of mine. Also, don't tell me that adding in Legolas and having a his girlfriend was necessary progress to the story. It's an obvious marketing tool to target a specific audience. I suppose comparing them to LotR isn't fair as that might have been a once in a lifetime achievement, but it's still the obvious thing to compare them to. The story of the Hobbit (movie) is poorly structured and lacks focus. It's split between the small adventure of the hobbit and the grand epic of the White Council vs Sauron. Having two separate storylines could have worked if the mood and feel were at least similar. But they aren't. The dwarfs are fooling around and tumbling down hills, and then cut to Gandalf/Saruman/Elrond sitting in a dark room talking for 15 minutes. The special effects of the Hobbit are pretty bad compared to LotR, despite there being ten years between them. It's so obvious what are effects shots and what isn't that is completely destroys any immersion. The first time I watched the LotR movies I didn't recognize a single obvious effect.
I call BS on this. The scene where Gandalf breaks the bridge of Khazad-dum looked terrible back then and it looks even worse now. Straight out of the 80s.
|
Just wanted to add that in LotR, it's easier to distinguish characters because they were all broken down into smaller subgroups, which makes it much easier to develop each character and give them all a voice. In Hobbit, it's just a giant group of 14 people walking around together all the time, which cuts down on the amount of screentime and lines each can give, making a good number of them seem irrelevant. I mean, in the first LotR movie, Gimli and Legolas honestly are not much more than background characters and it shows. It's not until Two Towers when the Fellowship splits up when Gimli and Legolas really start to flesh out. You can see this in the books, too. Oin, Gloing, Bifur, Bofur, etc... are practically only ever mentioned as a rhyming list of names throughout The Hobbit and in the Fellowship part of LotR, Gimli and Legolas honestly don't say/do that much even in the books.
The Hobbit as a book is really lighthearted and has much less actually stuff in the book than LotR. The reason why people prefer reading the Hobbit over LotR is because it's more lighthearted and easier to get through. LotR is honestly very dense and reads like a history textbook at times, which is terrible for bookreaders, but amazing for movie makers since there's just so much more to draw from. Jackson absolutely has to add "filler" material like Evangeline Lilly's character or the wizard Council simply because there's honestly not much stuff to put in purely from The Hobbit, especially when some of that stuff is so random and quite honestly, pointless, unless you take into context the entire LotR universe (like Tom Bombadil).
|
On October 04 2013 02:51 Serek wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 21:28 Vorenius wrote:On October 03 2013 20:20 Oldfool wrote:On October 03 2013 20:04 Vorenius wrote:
Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can. Why do people say this about movies. The people creating the movie aren't doing half-assed jobs. It's pretty clear from everything he does that Peter Jackson really has a passion for these films. About the only people I could agree are "milking for money" are Newline Cinema and MGM and that's their job. When making LotR there was absolutely a great passion behind the movies, all the way from Jackson and down to every single person involved. With the hobbit it seems to be just going through the motions, doing the same things with a different story. It's only natural I suppose. It's one thing working 100+ hours per week for almost 5 years to make a trilogy, but to do it twice? I doubt that's possible. On the other hand when New Line comes to you with a blank check and asks you to make some movies for them you are gonna say yes regardless. I don't blame them that they are trying to make a bunch of money off of this, they just won't get anymore of mine. Also, don't tell me that adding in Legolas and having a his girlfriend was necessary progress to the story. It's an obvious marketing tool to target a specific audience. I suppose comparing them to LotR isn't fair as that might have been a once in a lifetime achievement, but it's still the obvious thing to compare them to. The story of the Hobbit (movie) is poorly structured and lacks focus. It's split between the small adventure of the hobbit and the grand epic of the White Council vs Sauron. Having two separate storylines could have worked if the mood and feel were at least similar. But they aren't. The dwarfs are fooling around and tumbling down hills, and then cut to Gandalf/Saruman/Elrond sitting in a dark room talking for 15 minutes. The special effects of the Hobbit are pretty bad compared to LotR, despite there being ten years between them. It's so obvious what are effects shots and what isn't that is completely destroys any immersion. The first time I watched the LotR movies I didn't recognize a single obvious effect. I call BS on this. The scene where Gandalf breaks the bridge of Khazad-dum looked terrible back then and it looks even worse now. Straight out of the 80s.
It's been a while since I've seen the movies granted so not sure exactly what particular part you are talking about, but I remember the balrog looking pretty bad ass.
It doesn't really matter though. For whatever reason the effects of LotR were good enough that it didn't annoy me at the time. The Hobbit on the other hand has terrible and obvious effect shots.
|
Canada11382 Posts
On October 03 2013 20:04 Vorenius wrote:
Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can.
Well I don't think the movie is bad. (Though there are flaws and some uneven attempts to capture the lightheartedness of the book and capture the tone of the LotR's.) I just don't think people's expectation to know 15 separate characters in one plot/PoV equally is a realistic expectation for any movie. In fact although I said it was an 'inherent problem,' I do not actually mean that I think it is a problem. The other dwarves are on the outer edge because they are meant to be. That is the sort of story it is designed to be.
We might as well complain (as Chambers did) that the author of Beowulf wrote about Beowulf rather than the brief allusion to Ingeld, son of Froda. And further complaint that the story has a "disproportion that puts the irrelevances in the centre and the serious things on the outer edges."
Or we can look at the author has chosen to write the story about rather than which characters we wish it were about. Now if it turns out that the characters that the story is about (Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin and to some extent Balin) are not interesting enough to bring you back, then the story truly has failed for that reader/ viewer.
However, I disagree with the other poster that says The Hobbit is poorly structured. It is perhaps not well structured for a simple 3 act Hollywood film. But the book is perfectly structured for a bedtime story when you can read one self-contained chapter a night. (Trolls one night, Elves in Rivendell the next, and Goblins in the mountains in the next.)
|
On October 04 2013 12:07 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 20:04 Vorenius wrote:
Saying that it is an inherent problem with the source materiel, is just a bad excuse. If the materiel isn't there, either change it or don't make the movie. Using it as an excuse after the fact is pointless. The reason for a movie being bad doesn't matter, if it's still bad.
It was Peter Jackson's choice to take a childrens book and turn it into a PG-13 movie, a mish mash of different styles and themes. If it wasn't clear after the first part this trailer clearly shows that they are just milking it for as much money as possible before someone else can. Well I don't think the movie is bad. (Though there are flaws and some uneven attempts to capture the lightheartedness of the book and capture the tone of the LotR's.) I just don't think people's expectation to know 15 separate characters in one plot/PoV equally is a realistic expectation for any movie. In fact although I said it was an 'inherent problem,' I do not actually mean that I think it is a problem. The other dwarves are on the outer edge because they are meant to be. That is the sort of story it is designed to be. We might as well complain (as Chambers did) that the author of Beowulf wrote about Beowulf rather than the brief allusion to Ingeld, son of Froda. And further complaint that the story has a "disproportion that puts the irrelevances in the centre and the serious things on the outer edges." Or we can look at the author has chosen to write the story about rather than which characters we wish it were about. Now if it turns out that the characters that the story is about (Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin and to some extent Balin) are not interesting enough to bring you back, then the story truly has failed for that reader/ viewer. However, I disagree with the other poster that says The Hobbit is poorly structured. It is perhaps not well structured for a simple 3 act Hollywood film. But the book is perfectly structured for a bedtime story when you can read one self-contained chapter a night. (Trolls one night, Elves in Rivendell the next, and Goblins in the mountains in the next.)
Actually, whatever else may be said about the Hobbit:1, it's a perfectly standard Hollywood movie in terms of structure. They practically shout "this is an ACT CLIMAX" any time one happens. Classical structure is about 5 acts, timed at *very roughly* the 10, 30, 50, 80, and 90% marks. I wasn't counting during the movie, but Hobbit was following this format pretty precisely. Every Act Climax turns on the primary values of the story: Safety/Danger and Acceptance/Rejection (of Bilbo by group, and of the Adventure by Bilbo, with the latter being the primary value of the story). Every climax had a greater significance than the one before it. Bilbo was clear as protagonist, with Thorin and Gandalf having important sub-plots. They wrapped primary sub-plot moments after the release of tension from the primary climax.
If I were doing this story, I'd actually have this be the only movie with Bilbo as protagonist, moving the focus to Thorin for 2 and Gandalf for 3. But arkenstone episode can certainly be told either with a Bilbo (as in the book) or Thorin (as I suspect the movie will) protagonist. It's just that they clearly opened 2 potential plot lines with Thorin, making him very interesting for the next movie. That said, there's something very "Tolkien" in ignoring the great King to focus on the Hobbit.
|
Call me mistaken, but did I see Orlando Bloom in the movie TWICE (at an IMAX Gravity showing)? Once as Legolas, the other as a human?
Nevermind it was Luke Evans ><.
Though that would be something Peter Jackson would do ^^.
|
I cannot wait to see 3D 48 fps again. I saw the last one three times. But I got to say, the 3D of Gravity was really amazing too. Dunno, maybe they got better at motion blur. Avatar was horrible in 3D.
|
Its gonna be super funny to see Mikael Persbrandt in this one, we in Sweden can't take him serious after seeing him over-act all the time in Beck xD
|
This is thinking way ahead but I wonder if the third movie will place the Dwarves and Elves in the LOTR setting and explain what happens with them. Eh...?
|
On October 03 2013 11:07 Serejai wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 11:00 Falling wrote:On October 03 2013 10:43 Serejai wrote:
At the end of the first LoTR movie I knew the names of all the main characters. I had a favorite, I had a least favorite. I knew the villains
At the end of the first Hobbit movie I knew... Gandalf and Bilbo - two people that I already knew from the LoTR movies. I don't give a shit about any of the dwarves, nor could I tell you any of their names or ranks other than that one was a king.
This just hasn't grabbed me the way LoTR did and I'm not sure I'll bother seeing the next two movies. You do realize this is an issue that goes back to the source material? Thorin and to some extent Balin are the two standout and Fili & Kili just because they are younger. But what does Gloin really do in the book beyond quarrel with Oin in the first rainfalls before the Trolls. It is difficult to to portray 15 people separately when in the book they were light-heartedly named background characters (Ori, Dori, Nori, Bifor, Bofur, Bombur.) The rhyming scheme of the names helps collect them in our minds when reading, but you don't see that in the movie. I am hoping that the next two movies will further develop what Jackson has started in differentiating the Dwarves... particularly once Gandalf leaves. It's kinda like... I watched Game of Thrones before reading the books, and despite there being so many characters (and so many changing constantly), I could follow it without trouble at all. Even after re-watching the Hobbit multiple times I still can't figure out who is who.
I've recently started watching Game of Thrones also. I see what you're saying, except you have to remember that Game of Thrones has 10ish episodes a season, each episode quite long, in order to help you get to know each character on a detailed basis. You simply can't do that with so many characters in a single movie.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I gotta say that despite not reading the book, I thoroughly enjoyed the first part and am awaiting the release of the next two parts. I'll admit that I don't know the names of all the dwarfs and have forgotten some during the break since its release lol but as falling mentioned, I feel that it's unfair on the part of the watcher to think that you should know all 12 dwarf names when we've only had ~2.5 hours or so of the hobbit. The movie did a good job of setting up the scene and for me at least, I thought the action scenes were packed. I was able to follow the story, the effects were well done and aside from not knowing all the names, I didn't see any major faults with it. I guess I'm one of the few who watches to enjoy the movie and its story than worry about the effects or remembering all the minor details that I could care less about lol.
|
Canada11382 Posts
On October 13 2013 14:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This is thinking way ahead but I wonder if the third movie will place the Dwarves and Elves in the LOTR setting and explain what happens with them. Eh...?
What do you mean? Place them in the LotR's setting. They are in Middle Earth already, just in the northern parts of it.
|
On October 13 2013 16:18 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2013 14:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This is thinking way ahead but I wonder if the third movie will place the Dwarves and Elves in the LOTR setting and explain what happens with them. Eh...? What do you mean? Place them in the LotR's setting. They are in Middle Earth already, just in the northern parts of it.
But we never saw them in LotR as the books they have "war at their doorsteps already", maybe see the war of the ring from their perspective or at least part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
